- مبلغ: ۸۶,۰۰۰ تومان
- مبلغ: ۹۱,۰۰۰ تومان
This chapter presents a new conceptual framework of institutional research (IR). The framework refines previously studied dimensions of IR and integrates them into the higher order concept of knowledge management. Previously studied dimensions of IR include the institution’s organizational sectors (e.g., academic, human resources), the functions for which information is used (e.g., operations, strategic management), and the resources supporting IR (e.g., technology, funding). The framework innovates by specifying what competencies are required to carry out IR activities and how to assign a level of development to each competency. This operationalization permits the creation of an assessment tool enabling us to move from general and intuitive statements about development to specific and behavioral levels which are actionable. The framework formulation was validated with a group of IR experts in Chile. The framework can be used to assess one institution, to compare an institution to a peer group, or to compare groups of institutions at the regional, national, or international levels.
This new framework for IR presents several advantages. First, it incorporates the different dimensions of IR in a comprehensive unit while keeping them separate from one another to avoid confounding.
Second, it adds a new dimension specifying what competencies are required to carry out the activities of IR instead of relying on a detailed inventory of the activities themselves. This higher level of abstraction of the competencies dimension is more synthetic, more comprehensive, and more resilient to environmental changes making some activities come and go. Third, the framework clarifies how the competencies can exist at different levels of development in accordance with the concept of knowledge management.
This provides specificity and measurability. The framework specifies that exercising competencies in more sectors and for more functions also represents further development, because each addition entails a more comprehensive expertise. While sectoral development can be treated as additive because the competencies are evaluated for each, it is currently unclear how to treat the multiplicity of functions in a quantitative manner because there is overlap of competencies and sectoral content across functions. This is the subject of future work.